Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Chauhan v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2021CRLA/886/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against bail rejection in an alleged rape case under the SC/ST Act and IPC, the Hon'ble Court acknowledged inconsistencies in the victim's medical report regarding injuries. Balancing the serious charge with the medical discrepancies and detention period, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail on stringent conditions while setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted in favor of the appellant on personal bond and sureties subject to conditions regarding trial cooperation and attendance.

Pradeep Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Up and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 886 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Chauhan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dharm Jeet Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

On the earlier occasion Shri Dharm Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 was given opportunity to file counter affidavit with stop order of the Court, even then he has chosen not to file any counter affidavit. Thus, after taking the oral submissions of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the counter affidavit of learned A.G.A., the Court is proposing to decide this appeal finally on merits.

¶6

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the appellant; Shri Dharm Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") is targeted against the bail rejection order dated 30.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Bail Application No.186 of 2021 (Pradeep Kumar Chauhan vs. State of U.P), arising out of Case Crime no.05 of 2021, under Sections 376-D I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police StationSahatwar, District-Ballia.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that though the appellant is named in the F.I.R. with the allegation of committing rape upon the daughter of the informant. The alleged incident said to have taken place on 14.01.2021 around 4.00 in the evening, of which the F.I.R. was registered on 15.01.2021 at 15.40 hours with the delay of almost one day. The allegation in the F.I.R. is of committing gang rape by both the named accused persons namely Golu and Pradeep Kumar Chauhan (appellant). The statements of the victim u/s 161, 164 Cr.P.C. and the medical report of the victim are annexed along with supplementary affidavit as Annexures-1, 2 and 3 respectively. I have perused 161 statement of the victim in which she has reiterated the version of the F.I.R., whereas in 164 statement she has maintained the allegation of sexual assault upon her by both named accused but she has discounted

¶9

the allegation of abusing and cast related aspersions upon her. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of the Court to the medical report of the victim, in which the age of the girl comes around 18+ years and the doctor after examining the victim has candidly opined that "there is no evidence of external or internal injury. Her hymen is absent." On this it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that if two abled-body persons ravished a girl, her physical condition would not be as mentioned by the doctor in medical report of the victim. Learned counsel has further argued that the findings of the medical report has not corroborated the allegation of sexual assault upon the victim. It has been also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that on the eve of election the applicant has been falsely implicated. The appellant is languishing in jail since 15.1.2021.

¶10

Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that there is consistent stand of the victim that the applicant and Golu has sexually assaulted upon her.

¶11

After hearing rival submissions, it is clear that though there is consistent stand taken by the victim against the applicant but fact remains that medical report of the victim negates or at least put a question mark over the allegation of gang rape upon her.

¶12

The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie , appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period of detention already undergone, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Let the appellant- Pradeep Kumar Chauhan , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.

¶16

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN

¶17

CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶19

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶20

(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶22

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 30.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, is hereby set aside. Order Date :- 10.8.2021 M. Kumar

Pradeep Kumar Chauhan v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Chauhan v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Bir Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brajendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Vs State Of U. P. And Another

Narendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chandra Pandey Vs State of Up